Not at all.

... prohibits the application to amateur stations of any private land use restriction, including a restrictive covenant, that—

• on its face or as applied, precludes communications in an amateur radio service;
• fails to permit a licensee in an amateur radio service to install and maintain an effective out-door antenna on property under the exclusive use or control of the licensee; or
• does not constitute the minimum practicable restriction on such communications to accomplish the lawful purposes of a community association seeking to enforce such restriction.

This is so much better than where things stand now. For example, I have a friend who put up a wire antenna in his back yard in an HOA and was forced to take it down even though you could not even see it without trespassing on his property. How is a wire that no one can see without trespassing affecting anyone's home value? But, as things are, it can be banned. Banning a wire that no one can see certainly would not "constitute the minimum practicable restriction on such communications to accomplish the lawful purposes of a community association seeking to enforce such restriction."

Will everything immediately go smoothly and every ham operator get exactly what they want? No, of course not. Will people end up going to court to sort this out? I'm sure that will happen. But over time, an understanding of what all of this means will arise just like it has for satellite dishes and over the air antennas.

This bill certainly isn't perfect. But, it is infinitely better than where things stand right now.

I left Verizon years ago because I got tired of their "bill first, ignore questions later" attitude.

Bingo! I'm in that boat. I have 5 phones on a family plan and we pay about $140. Now I would have to pay $200. We don't use all of our data now. Unlimited provides absolutely no value to us. So, we'll stay with what we have until they make it impossible to do so.

Then we will explore our options.

Carter was not driven from office for being honest. He was driven from office because he wasn't doing a very good job. I admire Jimmy Carter. I think he is a fine person. But, he was a horrible president. Even my 'yellow dog democrat' mother in law (would vote for a yellow dog rather than any republican) voted for Ronald Reagan. That was one situation where we really did need someone else in the white house.

Absolutely not. Who is sponsoring and voting on these bills? It is not the FBI. Public enemy number one is politicians that want simple solutions to complicated problems. You could also argue that public enemy number one is the public. As voters we either re-elect incompetent incumbents or 'throw the bum out' and then replace them with someone far worse.

We need:

• To end gerrymandering
• Find better candidates
• Vote for them

Ending the stranglehold that the two major parties hold on the election process might be worth trying too.

Just like the average soldier wasn't the problem during the Vietnam war, the average FBI agent is not the problem today.

Of course they may have just purchased or licensed a serious security situation. There are a lot of poorly written applications created by the private sector and sold to the public sector.

There should be no excuse for a State though. They should have the resources to check out software and services they purchase (especially elections related software or services). When it comes to the County and City level though, many don't have the resources to do this kind of evaluation whether it is available skill sets or money to pay an expert. This is a significant problem that really needs addressing in many localities.

Florida really should drop this one. All they are doing is making themselves look worse (hey!, why just look stupid when you can also look corrupt).

Amen a thousand times over. This is the thing people are incapable of understanding. Places like Wilson, NC started their own broadband services because the commercial providers refused to work with them to improve their broadband. What they had was expensive and insufficient. How do you attract businesses to an area that does not offer a decent broadband service? Nothing changed until they decided to just implement their own. Of course, then the lobbyists convinced legislators to prevent others in the state from doing the same. Wilson is grandfathered.

It is not state governments job to prevent citizens from being served by own their local government when there is no commercial interest in providing a broadband solution. This ban on local broadband is simply ridiculous.

I think the quote went something like this:

"I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The proposed legislation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way competent, and was motivated purely by ignorance, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and any other citizen and I hereby undertake not to submit any such nonsense at any time in the future."

You think WFT is a typo?

What I want to know is: Does it still have the spaghetti mess of vacuum lines under the dashboard? They must have used vacuum for everything. I put a stereo in a DeLorean years ago when I worked in the car stereo and car alarm business. I couldn't believe what I saw.

A slide rule. It is great for understanding how logarithms work.

1. I drive 40 minutes to work every morning and up to an hour and a half driving home in the evening. I would love to hand this boring and wasteful task to my car. I could certainly do something much better with the time.

2. This technology will certainly become commonplace (look at aerospace, for example). It is going to take research to figure out how best to do this. It is going to require adjustments to how transportation is regulated. It may require changes to our infrastructure. You certainly don't to put these vehicles on the road without some thought to the implications of doing so. This costs money. What is the alternative?

3. The part that does concern me is what will happen when autonomous commercial vehicles become common. Talk about a job killer. How many hours each year do long haul trucks sit idle because the driver is required by law to stop to rest? That issue would completely disappear (along with a whole lot of decent jobs). Of course, this also could eliminate those accidents caused by drivers falling asleep.

As in almost all change, there are good points and bad points. There is also cost.

Who would care if the US spent 4 billion dollars on research, regulatory updates and infrastructure updates if the benefits far outweigh the cost? Unfortunately, sometimes you have to spend money just to find out if spending more is warranted. Consider the trillions we've spent recently that had almost no prospect of providing any benefit to the average American citizen. I'd much rather see spending on something like this.